Search results

Investigates the factors affecting student evaluation of teaching (SET). A total of 170 teaching evaluations conducted at the Nanyang Business School (Singapore) were analysed by regressing the overall teaching index on the following variables: subject characteristics (stream, year and type), class characteristics (format, size, time and day), evaluation characteristics (response, time and day), and teacher characteristics (age, gender and rank). Indicates that better teaching evaluation is associated with a smaller class size and a larger number of evaluation responses. Also, teachers of middle‐level subjects receive relatively poorer SET results. Further, SET administered in the later part of the week attract better student evaluation. Finds that teacher characteristics have no significant impact on SET results. Confirms the existence of potential biasing factors, hence, SET should be used with caution and not be the only method of evaluating teachers.

Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) are the most frequent form of faculty performance in the classroom, though they tend to be used as summative rather than formative evaluations. In this chapter, a project involving the use of a virtual learning environment for formative, weekly SETs is explored from both the student and faculty point of view at a rural university college in the United Kingdom. This project encouraged student participation in creating the learning environment and faculty reflection on how to improve the student experience. From the student perspective, the weekly anonymous evaluations were useful for providing feedback; however, students tended to only respond if they were not satisfied with the faculty member. The exception to this was that some students were more motivated to complete the evaluation forms if they believed the faculty member was utilising their feedback. From the faculty perspective, the feedback was not as detailed as they had expected, and some questioned whether it was worth the effort of conducting formative evaluations if the response rate was so low. Others used the feedback for reflective purposes, and it was found that those that reflected on their work at higher levels tended to receive a greater year-on-year increase in their end of year teaching evaluations.

Competition among higher education institutions has pushed universities to expand their competitive advantages. Based on the assumption that the core functions of universities are academic, understanding the teaching–learning process with the help of student evaluation of teaching (SET) would seem to be a logical solution in increasing competitiveness. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The current paper presents a narrative literature review examining how SETs work within the concept of service marketing, focusing specifically on the search, experience, and credence qualities of the provider. A review of the various factors that affect the collection of SETs is also included.

Relevant findings show the influence of students’ prior expectations on SET ratings. Therefore, teachers are advised to establish a psychological contract with the students at the start of the semester. Such an agreement should be negotiated, setting out the potential benefits of undertaking the course and a clear definition of acceptable performance within the class. Moreover, connections should be made between courses and subjects in order to provide an overall view of the entire program together with future career pathways.

Given the complex factors affecting SETs and the antecedents involved, there appears to be no single perfect tool to adequately reflect what is happening in the classroom. As different SETs may be needed for different courses and subjects, options such as faculty self-evaluation and peer-evaluation might be considered to augment current SETs.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of many factors on student evaluation of teaching.

The study analyzed 3,185 student evaluations of faculty from a newly accredited business program at the United Arab Emirates University using univariate and multi‐analysis of variance (ANOVA and MANOVA).

The findings support previous research regarding the existence of potential biasing factors. The results indicate that expected grade, actual grade, course level, class size, course timing, student gender and course subject significantly affect student evaluation of teaching.

Comparing individual faculty ratings regardless of other factors might not be fair. Our findings support the call of other researchers that ignoring these other factors may bias or make questionable the validity of student evaluation of teaching as a means of performance appraisal of faculty. Because of the possible existence of biasing factors in SET, there is a need to supplement it with other measures of teaching effectiveness

The validity of student evaluation of teaching (SET) has been continually debated in the academic community. The primary purpose of this research is to survey student perceptions to provide any evidence of inherent weaknesses in the use of SETs to measure and report teaching effectiveness accurately. The study surveyed over 500 undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in various accounting courses over two years at a large public university. Students were asked to rate several factors on their importance in faculty evaluations and identify instructor traits and behaviors warranting lower ratings. The study provides further evidence that the use of student evaluations of teaching for personnel decisions is not appropriate. Students will punish instructors who engage in a number of well‐known learning/teaching techniques, which encourages instructors to increase SET scores by sacrificing the learning process. Other measures and methods should be employed to ensure that teaching effectiveness is accurately measured and properly rewarded. Using student data as a surrogate for teaching performance is an illusionary performance measurement system.

To present a framework to facilitate comprehension of research on the effectiveness of the teaching evaluation process.

A comprehensive review of the literature that identifies common categories and factors that can be used to construct an analytical framework.

Identifies student related, course related and teacher related aspects of research on teaching evaluations. Factors commonly addressed within these aspects are also identified.

Use of the framework to analyse the literature on the student evaluation of teaching (SET) process leads to the view that the time is right to explore other methods of assessing classroom dynamics that could supplement the conventional teacher evaluation process.

Educational literature is replete with studies of the SET system, yet due to the preponderance of these studies, it is difficult to take an overview on the effectiveness of this system. On the basis of a comprehensive survey of the literature, this paper identifies and discusses the central factors influencing SET scores. These factors are then presented in a comprehensible table that can be used as a reference point for researchers and practitioners wishing to examine the effectiveness of the SET system.

The paper is one of the few to attempt to make sense of the myriad of studies on teacher evaluation and to develop a framework to facilitate analysis of the effectiveness of the SET system.

Student evaluation of teaching (SET) questionnaires are used in many countries, although much current research questions the validity of these surveys. US research indicates that more than 90 percent of academic accounting departments use this performance measurement. This paper aims to focus on the validity of SET data.

A mail survey was sent to a random sample of 1,000 accounting professors employed at four‐year universities and colleges in the USA. A total of 447 responses were returned for a response rate of 44.7 percent. Statistical results of the survey for data are reported.

Instructors engage in impression management when SET data are used for control purposes. Dysfunctional behavior of accounting instructors includes easy grading, inflating grades, course work deflation, and other defensive strategies which result in negative social implications. A significant 53 percent of the accounting instructors knew of other professors who have reduced grading standards and course content in order to improve SET scores.

Universities worldwide risk legal action when they defame faculty members by releasing unreliable and invalid SET results.

The paper illustrates some of the present problems with SET questionnaires.

The purpose of this study is to examine students' perception of end‐of‐semester Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET), and to explore the extent to which SET are biased by non‐instructional factors.

A survey questionnaire about the end‐of‐semester SET was designed and administered to 819 students selected from a random list of summer classes at the American University of Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates. Appropriate statistical analysis methods of the resulting data were performed.

The results of this study show that significant differences exist among the various demographic groups with respect to both students' perceptions of the evaluation process and their tendency to be biased by a number of non‐instructional factors. The study has presented evidence on how students' cultural and linguistic backgrounds affect their responses to SET.

This paper provides useful information for the academic community concerning the validity and reliability of SET rating scales used in US universities abroad and whether the data obtained from such rating scales should be used for administrative and personnel decisions. In addition, teachers should examine SET assessments with care before undertaking modifications to their teaching practices.

This paper was the first to examine SET in a US university overseas, where the majority of students are non‐native speakers of the English language, and of an Arab origin. The findings illuminate the importance of understanding the cultural and linguistic contexts of the institution in which SET are conducted.

Most business schools use student evaluation of teaching (SET) survey data for promotion, tenure, and merit decision‐making purposes. Since most SET questionnaires focus on students’ perceptions of an instructor rather than learning, there may be an incentive for instructors to resort to dysfunctional behavior in order to manipulate SET scores. The purpose of this article is to report the results of a survey designed to determine if such behavior occurs from an administrative viewpoint. A total of 773 administrative accounting professors were surveyed, with a response rate of 45.3 per cent. Although most administrators believe that a single numerical measure cannot capture all relevant evaluative data, they do believe that SET has caused grade inflation and they are dissatisfied with their current SET system. However, the majority of administrators would not replace the current evaluation system with an alternative evaluation system.

Although student evaluation of teaching (SET) is widely used, there has been a significant disparity between its potential benefits with the actual impact on improving educational quality. This study aims to inquire into the factors contributing to this discrepancy and the underlying mechanisms hindering the effective utilisation of SET.

This qualitative case study used problem-based methodology to investigate the theories of action of administrators involved in SET. The study uses SET documents and individual interviews with 18 administrators from six Vietnamese higher education institutions.

While the administrators monitored SET data and addressed SET problems, few used it for quality improvement. The participants’ SET approaches were influenced by various constraints, especially the intricate interaction between neoliberal agendas with professional and cultural values.

Despite a lack of statistical generalisability, this study contributes to analytical generalisation by vividly portraying the complexity of the SET practice in a higher education context.

This study suggests a more inclusive approach to quality improvement that prioritises multi-stakeholder engagement.

The constraint analysis offers invaluable insights into the challenges and dynamics of SET practice, which can be used to enhance SET effectiveness and overall educational quality.

This paper addresses the need to examine the theories of action of administrators involved in SET, emphasising the significance of a comprehensive understanding of the stakeholders’ underlying reasoning process for successful evaluation implementation.